Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
grayhawk

NCAA Exam Thread

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

After a 20 second violation has been called on the defense, the pitching coach continues to yell at the third base umpire about the call. What should the third base umpire do?

A. Eject the head coach without warning as arguing a 20-second violation is not allowed.

B. Eject the pitching coach without a warning.

C. Warn the team and if it continues, eject the pitching coach. 

D. Issue a warning and then eject the head coach if it continues.

 

Rule 9-2-c

The pitcher shall not:

Art. c.

Delay the game at any time. With the bases unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball within 20 seconds after receiving the ball on the mound;

PENALTY: After a warning for each pitcher, a ball will be called each time the rule is violated.

Note:  Coaches are prohibited from arguing a 20-second rule violation. A warning shall be given for the first offense and an ejection of the head coach on subsequent violations.

 

Appendix F

20-SECOND PITCH CLOCK LIMIT

4.  A strike results if the batter is not in the box ready to take the pitch with five seconds or less showing on the clock and time expires. When there is a timing or clock violation, no pitch will result and either a ball or strike is called depending on the violation and any ensuing play is nullified. Following a team warning, if a coach, student-athlete, manager or any other non playing personnel argues any penalty or timing procedure they are subject to an immediate ejection. The head coach is allowed to bring a clock malfunction or misapplication of protocol to the umpire’s attention.

 

In this case, I think the correct answer would be D because this question is about a call against the pitcher, correct?

Look at the note in the rule you posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
17 hours ago, Matt said:

Question #3 Video

How would you rule on this play?

a. Obstruction against a runner on which a play is being made. Immediate dead ball.

b. Type 2 obstruction. Keep the ball alive until play has ceased. Then call “Time” and award bases.

c. Runner intentionally tried to draw an obstruction call by reaching out to touch a fielder who was not obstructing him. Ball is alive.

It's a rundown, so B is not the answer. I was pretty sure C is incorrect by rule, but now I'm not sure.

I ruled C and have heard this play discussed by Hiler, fwiw.

If he goes out of his way during an attempted tag (not what's happening in the video), now you have a different situation with an out of the baseline call.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those taking the NAIA test, it's very easy.  No "gotcha" questions and it took all of 3 minutes to complete.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 1:55 PM, LineyNinja said:

Got a question that is tripping me up. Om my test it is Number 22. It reads:

R1, no outs. Batter attempts a bunt that rolls foul down the first base line. As the ball is about to stop rolling, the batter kicks the ball in disgust. The umpire is certain the ball would not have rolled fair.
 
  • a.
    • Batter is ejected.
 
  • b.
    • The batter is out.
 
  • c.
    • Foul ball.
 
  • d.
    • R1 is out for the batter's interference

I have the batter being out (Answer B) per rule 7-11-h Note " If while attempting to advance to first base, the batter-runner intentionally deflects the ball, the batter-runner is declared out, the ball is dead and all runners return. 

I feel that this rule conflicts with 7-11-o which reads "after hitting or bunting a foul ball, the batter-runner intentionally deflects the course of the ball that has a chance of becoming fair... The ball is dead, the batter is out, and no runner may advance.

 

Foul ball

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this one was discussed a bit previously, but I figured it would be a decent one for more discussion.    Not sure I would say the catcher was "in the act" (NCAA gave the definition of the ball being in its last 60' of flight) as it appears he's blocking the base from the time the ball left F6's hand.  Is it legal since the runner is not in the dirt circle?  The online clinic talked a lot about the dirt circle, but more from a runner's responsibility to avoid a collision.  

There is also this note to rule 8-7-4b: A catcher shall not be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of the runner, if, in the judgement of the umpire, the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate.  

However, the question on the test reads: "The catcher was blocking the plate as the runner attempted to score.  Legal play as he was in the act of fielding the throw."  I don't really agree with the underlined as he was blocking the plate well before the last 60' of flight.  

.  

IMG_1389.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 9:42 PM, slo8140 said:

Question #23 Video

Per the definition of “tag”, if the umpire judges the fielder has maintained control of his body and the ball, it is a tag.

  • a. True (is what the NCAA wants)
  • b. False

 

Much discussion in my group on this video question. What did y'all have on this one?

Got lucky to have two of the guys in the crew at our meeting. They stayed with out as the fielder maintained control throughout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In this situation, the plate umpire should issue an “official warning” to this coach and hope he returns to his position."  This is the video question where the coach comes in to argue a called strike 3.  It seems like it should be false according to Note 2 below.  Applicable rule is 3-6f (I think):  

Note 1 - Balls, strikes and half swings are not to be argued. After a warning, any player or coach who continues to argue balls, strikes or half swings shall be ejected from the game. Umpires shall record the warning.

Note 2 - If a coach leaves the dugout or his position to argue a ball or strike call (including a half swing), the coach may be ejected without warning

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zoops said:

"In this situation, the plate umpire should issue an “official warning” to this coach and hope he returns to his position."  This is the video question where the coach comes in to argue a called strike 3.  It seems like it should be false according to Note 2 below.  Applicable rule is 3-6f (I think):  

Note 1 - Balls, strikes and half swings are not to be argued. After a warning, any player or coach who continues to argue balls, strikes or half swings shall be ejected from the game. Umpires shall record the warning.

Note 2 - If a coach leaves the dugout or his position to argue a ball or strike call (including a half swing), the coach may be ejected without warning

It is false.  For me, the word “hope” tips it. Umpires should never “hope” anything when it comes to game management.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

It is false.  For me, the word “hope” tips it. Umpires should never “hope” anything when it comes to game management.  

Figured that; I'm a teacher and that pretty much tipped it off that is was false but figured I'd check.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2018 at 9:11 AM, zoops said:

I know this one was discussed a bit previously, but I figured it would be a decent one for more discussion.    Not sure I would say the catcher was "in the act" (NCAA gave the definition of the ball being in its last 60' of flight) as it appears he's blocking the base from the time the ball left F6's hand.  Is it legal since the runner is not in the dirt circle?  The online clinic talked a lot about the dirt circle, but more from a runner's responsibility to avoid a collision.  

There is also this note to rule 8-7-4b: A catcher shall not be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of the runner, if, in the judgement of the umpire, the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate.  

However, the question on the test reads: "The catcher was blocking the plate as the runner attempted to score.  Legal play as he was in the act of fielding the throw."  I don't really agree with the underlined as he was blocking the plate well before the last 60' of flight.  

.  

IMG_1389.JPG

The way that it was explained to me yesterday... nothing the catcher does matters until the runner gets to the dirt circle. The ball is within 60’ when the runner gets to the dirt circle so it is legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JSam21 said:

The way that it was explained to me yesterday... nothing the catcher does matters until the runner gets to the dirt circle. The ball is within 60’ when the runner gets to the dirt circle so it is legal.

So in this play, we need to examine the hypotheticals.  If the runner had deviated his path to avoid any possible collision because the catcher had been blocking the plate illegally (prior to ball in dirt circle or 60 feet) do you call the obstruction then?  If the answer to that is, YES, how is this a legal play as the questions asks?

I believe in that case you would have to call obstruction because the plate was blocked and in no way can we say the "act of fielding" took the catcher into the baseline - He was already there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, humanbackstop19 said:

So in this play, we need to examine the hypotheticals.  If the runner had deviated his path to avoid any possible collision because the catcher had been blocking the plate illegally (prior to ball in dirt circle or 60 feet) do you call the obstruction then?  If the answer to that is, YES, how is this a legal play as the questions asks?

I believe in that case you would have to call obstruction because the plate was blocked and in no way can we say the "act of fielding" took the catcher into the baseline - He was already there.  

The runner doesn’t know where the ball is. If he sees the catcher in the basepath he should slide if he has reached the dirt. If he slides and is blocked or hindered by the catcher when you perceive the ball was more than 60’ away I guess you call obstruction. I like FED and OBR better. I think you can’t use the NCAA rule for guidance. You have to use their video interps. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jimurray said:

The runner doesn’t know where the ball is. If he sees the catcher in the basepath he should slide if he has reached the dirt. If he slides and is blocked or hindered by the catcher when you perceive the ball was more than 60’ away I guess you call obstruction. I like FED and OBR better. I think you can’t use the NCAA rule for guidance. You have to use their video interps. 

Totally agree with you on liking FED and new OBR standards!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, humanbackstop19 said:

Totally agree with you on liking FED and new OBR standards!  

The runner has 3 choices when he enters the dirt circle.

 

1. Slide legally

2. Give himself up

3. Avoid collision.

if he slides legally every time, then it makes the plays start to get easier. Now i can watch the catcher to see if he is cheating. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 12:55 PM, LineyNinja said:

Got a question that is tripping me up. Om my test it is Number 22. It reads:

R1, no outs. Batter attempts a bunt that rolls foul down the first base line. As the ball is about to stop rolling, the batter kicks the ball in disgust. The umpire is certain the ball would not have rolled fair.
 
  • a.
    • Batter is ejected.
 
  • b.
    • The batter is out.
 
  • c.
    • Foul ball.
 
  • d.
    • R1 is out for the batter's interference

I have the batter being out (Answer B) per rule 7-11-h Note " If while attempting to advance to first base, the batter-runner intentionally deflects the ball, the batter-runner is declared out, the ball is dead and all runners return. 

I feel that this rule conflicts with 7-11-o which reads "after hitting or bunting a foul ball, the batter-runner intentionally deflects the course of the ball that has a chance of becoming fair... The ball is dead, the batter is out, and no runner may advance.

 

C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2018 at 10:33 PM, alex7 said:

I ruled C and have heard this play discussed by Hiler, fwiw.

If he goes out of his way during an attempted tag (not what's happening in the video), now you have a different situation with an out of the baseline call.

Agree with C on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2018 at 6:11 AM, Matt said:

Question #3 Video

How would you rule on this play?

a. Obstruction against a runner on which a play is being made. Immediate dead ball.

b. Type 2 obstruction. Keep the ball alive until play has ceased. Then call “Time” and award bases.

c. Runner intentionally tried to draw an obstruction call by reaching out to touch a fielder who was not obstructing him. Ball is alive.

It's a rundown, so B is not the answer. I was pretty sure C is incorrect by rule, but now I'm not sure.

We can have Type 2 on a rundown, no?  I think this question is C. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2018 at 1:56 PM, Minnz said:

Got lucky to have two of the guys in the crew at our meeting. They stayed with out as the fielder maintained control throughout.

I wonder if there would even be a debate or a video question on this if the call was "safe"? 

My guess would be no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2018 at 3:09 PM, JSam21 said:

The way that it was explained to me yesterday... nothing the catcher does matters until the runner gets to the dirt circle. The ball is within 60’ when the runner gets to the dirt circle so it is legal.

Is anybody aware of even one obstruction call at home plate on a play like this? 

Just curious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Is anybody aware of even one obstruction call at home plate on a play like this? 

Just curious. 

yes.. we had one in the SEC.. the went to video and changed it to a safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Haid D' Salaami said:

the rundown is nothing as the runner tried to create Obstruction. Live play

I know. You see I said "C" what I was stating was the notion that OBS during a rundown, on the runner involved in the rundown would be Type 2. yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Haid D' Salaami said:

yes.. we had one in the SEC.. the went to video and changed it to a safe.

But you had to use video. Still haven't heard of one called in live action. My point is that there is so much going on...that getting the OBS during live action is extremely difficult without replay. It's better to err on no obstruction. The videos provide great training tools to use as a guide to help us improve our judgment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haid D' Salaami said:

yes.. we had one in the SEC.. the went to video and changed it to a safe.

So the runner slid into or around the blocking catcher, ball not being within 60', runner not getting to the plate and then the ball arrived and runner was tagged out? Video showed actual block or runners deviation around block was was before ball was within 60' ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×